Colossians 1:16

Paul now gives the ground for the designation of the Son as πρωτότ. π. κτίσεως. In Him τὰ πάντα were created. From this it follows that the Son cannot be a creature, for creation is exhausted by the “all things” which were so created in Him (“omnem excludit creaturam,” Bengel). ἐν αὐτῷ : this does not mean “by Him”. The sense is disputed. The schoolmen, followed by some modern theologians, explain that the Son is the archetype of the universe, the κόσμος νοητός, the eternal pattern after which the physical universe has been created. So Philo held that the Logos was the home wherein the eternal ideas resided. But it is by no means clear that Alexandrian influence can be traced in the Epistle. Further, the notion of creation is not suitable to the origin of the ideal universe in the Son. If the Son was from eternity the archetype of the universe, then ἐκτίσθη ἐν αὐτῷ ought not to have been used, both because the aorist points to a definite time and the idea of creation is itself inapplicable. But that the ideal universe was at some time created in the Son is an highly improbable, if it is even an intelligible, idea. Again, the sense of ἐκτίσθη is controlled by that of κτίσις, which does not refer to the ideal universe. It must therefore refer to the actual creation of the universe. If Paul had intended to speak of the realisation in creation of the ideal universe which had in the Son its eternal home he would have said ἐξ αὐτοῦ. Others (Mey., Ell., Moule) take ἐν αὐτῷ to mean simply that the act of creation depended causally on the Son. This is perhaps the safest explanation, for Haupt's interpretation that apart from His Person there would have been no creation, but with His Person creation was a necessity in other words, that creation was “given” in Christ seems with the aorist and the choice of the word ἐκτίσθη to be inconsistent with the eternal existence of the Son. τὰ πάντα, i.e., the universe in its widest sense regarded as a collective whole. ἐν τ. οὐρανοῖς κ. ἐπὶ τ. γῆς. As Lightfoot points out, “a classification by locality,” while τὰ ὁρατὰ κ. τ. ἀόρατα is a “classification by essence”. The two do not precisely correspond, for the divisions cross each other to some extent, though some confine the things in heaven to the world of spirits, and the things on earth to the world of men, in which case they would correspond to things invisible and things visible. Against this see above on π. κτίσεως. εἴτε θρόνοι κ. τ. λ. This is not an exhaustive definition of τὰ πάντα, for Paul selects for mention those creatures to whom worship was paid by the false teachers. The names, as in similar lists, denote angels and not earthly powers. For some of them occur in Jewish angelology, and a reference to earthly dignities would be irrelevant to the polemical purpose of the passage. These angels, Paul insists, so far from being superior or equal to Christ, were as inferior to Him as the creature is to the Creator. They owed their very existence to Him, and could not therefore be allowed for one moment to usurp His place. Lightfoot thinks that Paul is expressing no opinion as to their objective existence, but is simply repeating subjective opinions; and that both here and in Colossians 2:18 he shows a “spirit of impatience with this elaborate angelology”. But in face of the detailed proof that he accepted the doctrine of various orders of angels (given most fully by Everling), this cannot be maintained, nor is there any polemical reference in Ephesians 1:21. It may be questioned whether any inference can be drawn as to the order of the ranks of angels. The order in the parallel list, Ephesians 1:21, is ἀρχή, ἐξουσία, δύναμις, κυριότης, on which Godet remarks that in Col. the question is of creation by Christ from whom all proceed, hence the enumeration descends; but in Eph. of the ascension of the risen Christ above all orders, hence the enumeration ascends. But it must be urged against this not merely that only three out of the four titles coincide, but that the order is not fully inverted. Possibly Paul employs here the order of the false teachers (so Kl [8]). The order apparently descends, but it is questionable if this is intentional, for if the highest orders were inferior to Christ, a fortiori the lower would be. θρόνοι : taken by some to be the angels of the throne, that is angels who, like the cherubim, bear the throne of God. But it is more probable that they are those seated on thrones (cf. Revelation 4:4). On these orders, cf. the Slavonic Enoch, xx. 1. In the seventh heaven Enoch saw “a very great light and all the fiery hosts of great archangels, and incorporeal powers and lordships and principalities and powers; cherubim and seraphim, thrones and the watchfulness of many eyes”. Also Enoch, lxi. 10, “and all the angels of powers and all the angels of principalities ”. Test., xii., Patr. Levi., 3, ἐν δὲ τῷ μετʼ αὐτόν εἰσι θρόνοι, ἐξουσίαι, ἐν ᾧ ὕμνοι ἀεὶ τῷ Θεῷ προσφέρονται. κυριότητες : apparently inferior to θρόνοι. ἀρχαὶ … ἐξουσίαι usually occur together and in this order. τὰπάντα … συνέστηκεν : thrown in as a parenthesis. διʼ αὐτοῦ. The Son is the Agent in creation (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:6); this definitely states the pre-existence of the Son and assumes the supremacy of the Father, whose Agent the Son is. εἰς αὐτὸν. That the Son is the goal of creation is an advance on Paul's previous teaching, which had been that the goal of the universe is God (Romans 11:36; cf. 1 Corinthians 8:6, ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν). It is urged by Holtzmann and others as decisive against the authenticity of the Epistle as it stands. But in 1 Corinthians 15:25 sq. all things have to become subject to the Son before He hands over the kingdom to the Father. We find the same thought in Matthew 28:18 and Hebrews 2:8. And, as Oltramare and others point out, in 1 Corinthians 8:6, διʼ οὗ τὰ πάντα is said of Christ, but of God in Romans 11:36. Yet this difference is not quoted to show that Romans and Corinthians cannot be by the same hand, and it is equally illegitimate to press εἰς αὐτ. as inconsistent with Pauline authorship. ἔκτισται. The perfect, as distinct from the aorist, expresses the abiding result as distinct from the act at a definite point of time (cf. John 1:3, ἐγένετο followed by γέγονεν).

[8] Klöpper.